LORD NICHOLAS STERN INTERVIEW - 15th November 2009
For months now, governments all over the world have been racing the
clock to get their acts together before the wildly-debated UN climate
change confest in Copenhagen early next month. Amazingly, here in the
land down-under we're still haggling over our carbon reduction targets,
but it's not just us lagging behind. Right across the globe, the
summit's goals are being downgraded as the December 7 deadline gets
closer. Earlier this year, we talked with Lord Nicholas Stern, the
architect of the 2006 UK review that became pretty much the benchmark
for discussion on the whole issue of climate change and carbon
reduction. With two very nervous weeks to go before Copenhagen - and
what it may or probably won't achieve - that interview is as pertinent
as ever.
GEORGE NEGUS: Lord Stern, the Opposition here think we should
wait until after the Copenhagen summit in December. Have you got any
advice - gratuitous or otherwise - to give us? Because, it would seem
it's become a real political football in this country.
LORD NICHOLAS STERN, CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMIST: I think it's very
important for the people of Australia and those involved in this
discussion to take account of the very big international implications
of what Australia decides to do. It can't simply wait for everybody
else, because we're all part of this together and, actually, Australia
is rather a prominent part of the story. Australia, Canada, the United
States are right up there amongst the big emitters - over 20 tonnes of
CO2-equivalent per capita, compared with Europe with around 10, 11 or
12, China around 5, India below 2 and much of sub-Saharan Africa below
1 tonne per capita. So I think the world will ask, "If Australia - with
all its advantages - "can't cut back strongly, "then how can anybody
expect us to cut back strongly?" It's an extremely serious issue for
the rest of the world what Australia does. And I think that there
should be a sense of urgency - as you debate your own problems very
robustly and in your own way, it's very important that that sense of
urgency comes through Australian politics, because what you do is a
significant part of what the world will do.
GEORGE NEGUS: But can it wait until Copenhagen? Can we wait
for the US
and China, for instance?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: There's a real potential for momentum here with
the changing policies of the US Administration. They have committed
themselves to 80% reductions over 1990-2050. And that's from a level of
emissions not dissimilar from that of Australia. They're building their
emissions trading scheme. In China they're looking very intently at
their energy strategy, building into their 12th 5-year plan, which
starts at the beginning of 2011. We're seeing big changes in those
countries. China is talking about peaking by 2020 in its emissions and
we haven't heard that before. And Australia is in a very special
position in relation to those two key powers. I think its political
position - and its actually rather favourable political position in
relation to the US and China - is also very important.
GEORGE NEGUS: Lord Stern, what would you say to one particular
MP, who
said recently that to go it alone on this issue would be economic
suicide?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: There's no way that Australia could be interpreted
as going it alone by moving forward now. That is absolutely
fundamental. Second, I think we must recognise the great advantages to
acting early. The low-carbon technologies are going to be the
technological and innovation drivers of the next two or three decades.
High-carbon growth has no future. On the other hand, there's going to
be a great demand for the technologies which Australia is in a very
good position to produce. I mean, carbon capture and storage for coal,
I think there's a good bet that if Australia really goes for it now it
will become a world leader in what will be a huge market.
GEORGE NEGUS: When the Rudd Government announced that they
would be
looking at up to a maximum of 25% cut from 2000 levels by 2020 they
were derided that these levels are too far too low. The Greens here
condemned it as very unadventurous, a non-bold move. How do you feel
about a 25% cut?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: When people talk about cuts by 2020, they think of
2020, understandably, as the midpoint between 1990 and 2050. As a
midpoint for 1990-2050, then strong cuts - at least of the order of 25%
or arguably more - are necessary for rich countries, which should be
going for at least 80% cuts 1990-2050.
GEORGE NEGUS: So our goal is not too low?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: No, what I'm arguing is that if it's relative to
1990, a 25% cut could be plausible as a route from 1990-2050. There
could be some understanding around the world that we are where we are,
we wasted a couple of decades and we start in 2010 in a place that's
not very attractive and where, really, we shouldn't have been.
GEORGE NEGUS: Of late it seems that the era of climate change
action
that followed your report has lost some of its urgency - that a little
thing called "the global financial crisis" has pushed it off its perch
as global enemy number one. Does it bother you that people are using
the global financial crisis as a way of avoiding the issue of climate
change?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: Well, the argument that action on the climate
crisis should somehow be delayed because we've got a current economic
crisis is simply confused and wrong. The reason we got into this
economic crisis is that we delayed action - we didn't take into account
the kind of risks that we were generating. We ignored them and we
delayed action. We shouldn't make the same mistake on climate change.
When we came out of the dotcom bubble around the turn of the century
and tried to revive our economies after that, what we did was to lay
the foundations of the next bubble. It makes no sense to come out of
one crisis in a way that isn't sustainable.
GEORGE NEGUS: You originally said that unless we invest in
something
like 1% of global GDP per annum fighting climate change it could
ultimately cost us up to 20% of global GDP. Now in your new work you
are calling for an investment of 2%. Does that mean the situation is
worsening?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: I raised the number because I think, looking back,
the targets that were proposed in the Stern Review were not ambitious
enough, given the kinds of risk which we're now seeing. The risks are
actually still worse than we saw in the Stern Review because greenhouse
gases are growing faster than we assumed, the absorptive capacity of
the planet - particular the oceans - to absorb greenhouse gases is less
than we thought, and some of the effects - for example, Greenland ice
melting - are coming through faster than we thought. So what I'm
suggesting now is that we raise our targets somewhat - that will cost a
little more - but I'm, on the other hand, extremely encouraged by the
way in which technology is moving. And I suspect that 5 or 10 years
from now some of these costs might look, actually, as on the high side
- that it could be actually rather cheaper because of the great
technological progress that's coming through.
GEORGE NEGUS: Lord Stern, how important is the upcoming
Copenhagen
summit? Is that a crunch point for the globe?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: Absolutely. It's the most important international
gathering since the Second World War.
GEORGE NEGUS: You put it that high?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: Yes. The risks that we run are still bigger than
the very unpleasant experiences the world went through in the 30 years
from 1914 to 1944 which led up to the Bretton Woods Conference and the
recognition that unless we collaborate as a world the consequences will
be disastrous. This time around, on the climate, they're still more
dangerous than what we went through in those 30 years, 1914-1944. The
difference is that we have to anticipate it. We have to see what's
coming because if we wait to see how it comes to us, how it manifests
itself, it will be too late. It's not like a trade talk, where you fail
and you pick it up five years later in roughly the same position. Five
years later we'll be in a much worse position because of the build-up
of stocks of greenhouse gases and because of the locked-in investments
in high-carbon technologies we would be making.
GEORGE NEGUS: The sceptics are still out there - the people
who believe
that science could be wrong about this. Are they still getting in your
ear?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: No. They're totally marginal now. I mean, do they
object to the laws of thermodynamics or gravitation? I mean, it's just
absurd. The greenhouse gases are there, they're going up and greenhouse
gases trap heat - that's been known since the 19th century. So it's
really only in bar rooms, I think, that this kind of discussion takes
place. I don't think anybody would regard that as serious anymore.
GEORGE NEGUS: You must feel occasionally as though you're
swinging
between optimism on one hand and Armageddon on the other. Do you
occasionally feel a bit schizoid about climate change?
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: Well, I feel that the risks if we don't act are
immense. And it's sometimes frustrating that people don't realise -
that some people don't realise - just how big those risks are. If we
change the planet along the route that we are taking hundreds of
millions of people would have to move. You'd see that in the second
half of this century, the early part of next - indeed some of it is
already happening now. And if hundreds of millions of people move we'll
have protracted world conflict. Those are the kinds of stakes we are
headed for. This is very big stuff. On the other hand, the route
forward with low-carbon technologies, new discoveries, I think is a
very exciting route. Low-carbon growth will be cleaner, more energy
secure, more biodiverse, probably quieter and safer. It's actually
pretty attractive.
GEORGE NEGUS: Lord Stern, thanks very much for your time -
appreciated.
LORD NICHOLAS STERN: Great to talk to you, George.
GEORGE NEGUS: Climate change guru British economist Lord
Nicholas
Stern. Not too sure, though, about the sceptics still being marginal.
But you can only wonder what Lord Stern thinks of the almost universal
view right now that a legally-binding treaty on global carbon emissions
is highly unlikely - despite his dire warnings that it was a must. By
the way, we'll actually be in Denmark ourselves, including Copenhagen,
to preview the summit for next week's program. Even before the summit
they're hosting, the Danes are already setting a cracking pace for the
rest of the world on how to reduce carbon emission.